Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life on neutron stars


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Redirecting can be done editorially.  Daniel  05:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Life on neutron stars

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced original research and speculation. Note: there was some kind of squabbling in the history of this debate by a few inexperienced users. MER-C 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seeing as this allegedly originated from two notable persons, it's remotely possibly notable (although probably better to merge to one of said person's own page).  It would have helped if the page's creator had actually named which books this theory originated from so that what is not original research could be easily verified.  Someguy1221 06:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as rank speculation. Concepts hypothesised in fiction are only notable if commented on by third-party sources. Article essentially consists of original research. Tree Kittens 06:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm, I seem to recall something related to this in a book by Larry Niven (in a commentary section, not in a story). This source  may be reliable, but I'm not sure.  I can also find something that indicates Hans Moravec may have covered the idea.  So I'm not convinced to keep, but I'd like some exploration of the issues before deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is clearly speculation in nature. It consists of unpublished facts and theories. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 06:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If reliable sources or notable people have commented on the speculation, would it not be best to mention this in passing in articles like Neutron star or extraterrestrial life rather than have an article on the speculation? How could we be expected to find reliable sources to contradict the assertion that life on neutron stars is plausible? How could we make the article neutral without introducing original research of our own? Tree Kittens 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A reliable source on xenobiologic speculation would likely clearly label this theory as just that, speculation.  And so there is (hopefully) no need to insert original research to make clear there is no evidence for this.  Someone would just have to locate an actual source first.  Further, the novels that allegedly sparked this theory (according to the article) are fiction, so that makes it pretty clear too.  Someguy1221 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But if that speculation exists, and if third parties are discussing the speculation, it's notable speculation (and I don't know one way or the other at this point, so I'm not voting). Something doesn't have to be true to be in Wikipedia: we have articles on fan death and many ancient myths. This isn't scientifictopicsonlypleasepedia or geekguysapprovepedia; we cover what's been noted by reliable sources, not what we know is true (which in itself would be original research). -- Charlene 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to say what these reliable sources are. Tree Kittens 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And if no xenobiologist has commented on it? Then we're not allowed to say it's unlikely because that would be original research. We're not even allowed to say that no xenobiologist has commented on it, unless another reliable source has said so, because that too would be original research. We'd just have to put up with the absurdity of it. Tree Kittens 07:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think a solution can be provided without knowing what the sources say yet, if they actually exist.  Someguy1221 07:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You're absolutely right. I'm new to this process, so do excuse my over enthusiasm. Best regards Tree Kittens 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per "Concepts hypothesised in fiction are only notable" by Tree Kittens - Lack of notability for this concept Corpx 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jreferee's findings below Corpx 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add additional sources to better show the influence, reception of this fascinating theory. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced, speculative, fictitious, etc. No one would put forth a serious work devoted to the possibility of life on a neutron star - anything that can be found will be a work of fiction or a tongue-in-cheek joke.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, while the presence of life on a neutron star may be unlikely, it has been used as a literary device by Robert Forward. Use by a single author isn't likely to be notable, but a quick search of Amazon turns up at least a half dozen books that cite Forward's use of the concept as an example.  They use it to illustrate the extremes types of alien life that have been imagined by Science Fiction authors. Burzmali 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't consider the extent of general discussion significant, even if it were inserted in the article.. We are, by the way, permitted to engage in the necessary research of sources to se if it is discussed or not. The website given as the ref does not seem operative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 Jul 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dragon's Egg. --Lambiam Talk  20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dragon's Egg. Someguy1221 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, one of the many interesting ideas suggested by Robert L. Forward, but not limited to him, so I don't think it should be redirected to Dragon's Egg. Speculation about what life could exist in high-gravity, whether Jupiter or a neutron star, is one of those concepts developed by scientists turned science fiction authors. Mandsford 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Dragon's Egg. As it is now, it depends on one academic website, not functioning right now. If we find a source, it should be a paragraph in that article; if there come to be several sources, we can separate it off again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research.  Only source is self published.  --SmokeyJoe 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep An archived version of the source is available here: . It is no more and no less speculative than its parent subject, exobiology. --Victor falk 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That page is no more notable than a blog. Just because it is hosted on a university domain doesnt imply notability.  Corpx 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The source has been misunderstood. It is not about life on neutron stars at all, but the issue of scale in physics as it relates to thestrong force and other fundamental forces. The comment at the top about the possibility of life is a throw-away remark to set up an analogy to explain this. The author is not actually asserting the possibility. Has anyone found a reliable third-party source for the article? Tree Kittens 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this inconsistent with the last two paragraphs, which make arguments about the speed of evolution in the enviroment of a neutron star. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * His allusion to the "speed of evolution" is an illustrative example of how forces at different scales cause certain types of event to happen more quickly. He is using the evolutionary time-scale as a descriptive and pedagogic analogy. If this source is accepted as reliable for this topic however, maybe we can look forward to articles on Civilisations on neutron stars, and Evolution on neutron stars... By the way, does anyone know the author of this essay? Have any other sources been discovered? Tree Kittens 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The essay was course material for an undergraduate physics course on how physics has been used in the creation of science fiction by Dr. Terry Boyce, while he was Honorary Associate Professor at the Physics Dept. of Hong Kong University. He retired in 2004. --Lambiam Talk  22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You drive me to incivility; but I shall simply quote the paragraph:
 * Since the time scale for strong-force life (typically 10-21 s) is only a minute fraction of the time scale for electromagnetic-force life (typically a thousandth of a second), we expect evolution to proceed that much more rapidly. The origin of life would then take not 1 billion years, as on Earth, but one billionth of a year - about one-thirtieth of a second. This seems a short time to us, but it would allow billions and billions of interactions for each of the complex nuclei, allowing entire civilizations to evolve faster than the human eye can wink. The individual members of these civilizations would be about 10-13 m in size and would live for about 10-15 s. For communication, they would probably use gamma-ray photons at a frequency 1010 times greater than that of visible light photons.
 * Please do not cloud our discussion further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sorry to have bothered you. I was making a perfectly valid point, with which you are perfectly entitled to disagree. In my humble opinion your large quotation largely supports my point especially when read in the context of the whole essay. I have no intention of "clouding our discussion"; quite the opposite. It would be good if people would say whether they regard the source as meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Identifying its author would be a good start. Failing that, another source would help. Best regards Tree Kittens 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Speculative topic with no peer-reviewed scientific publications to provide credibility. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete – Purely speculative essay, apparently inspired by Dragon's Egg. Merging with or redirecting to Dragon's Egg is acceptable is as alternate action. --EMS | Talk 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Nonsensical drivel at best. Agree with ems57cva as an acceptable outcome, if it would placate the author. Jgassens 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original research devoid of reliable sources, not much more to say. Trusilver 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - After a quick Google books search, I found at least four novels that address this hypothesis. With a little more effort, it is very likely that there are more reliable sources. The topic easily meets notability. Comment: The novel Dragon's Egg is only notable if commented on by third-party sources. However, Dragon's Egg itself counts as a reliable source for this topic in determining Wikipedia notability. Notable hypothesis, speculation, and hoaxes still receive Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not censored merely because someone finds a hypothesis or speculation objectionable. Some references:
 * Forward, Robert (1980) Dragon's Egg. Publisher Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-28646-4
 * Goldsmith, Donald; Owen, Tobias. (June 30, 1992) Search for Life in the Universe. Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-20156-949-3
 * Hey, Tony; Walters, Patrick. (September 13, 1997) Einstein's Mirror. Publisher: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-52143-532-3
 * Nahin, Paul J.; Thorne, K.S. (April 20, 2001) Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction. Publisher: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-38798-571-9
 * --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You address the notability of the topic, but the concern is that the contents of the article is original research – which is a very different concern. You added all these publications as references. But are they sources for the contents? Can the various claims made in the article be verified from these references? --Lambiam Talk  19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless someone can demonstrate that this isn't an original synthesis/analysis. The books themselves are primary sources. This would only seem to be either notable or not OR if there's any RS material discussing it. SamBC 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It can come in another life if something notable is found. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.